Let us test Darwin, teacher says

[Bluemofia]

My Physics teacher lets us find out Physics for ourselves. By letting us design the experiment, and then we figure out the stuff using math. Then he tells us the correct answer (usually not much different from what we got. Except once when we screwed up badly).

And my Middle School Math teacher taught us math and geometry with actual tangible stuff, such as filling a cube with water using a cone, cutting out the angles on a triangle to make a straight line, etc.

 

[Antilogic]

That's a great point. My college biology professor gave us populations of E. Coli and we got to add environmental factors to separate petri dishes with the same initial composition, many of which resulted in the genetic composition of the E. Coli changing--we could tell the species apart because we genetically spliced in phosphorescent DNA into certain population's gene codes.

The fact is, certain trends of E. Coli tended to die off when you added toxins to the environment, and the genetic composition of the individual populations changed. This demonstrates the primary driving force of evolution, natural selection, in a laboratory setting.

It was a great lab. Now, if only we could get those fundamentalists to take a college bio class so they could do it too.

 

[Homie]

That's a great point. My college biology professor gave us populations of E. Coli and we got to add environmental factors to separate petri dishes with the same initial composition, many of which resulted in the genetic composition of the E. Coli changing--we could tell the species apart because we genetically spliced in phosphorescent DNA into certain population's gene codes.

The fact is, certain trends of E. Coli tended to die off when you added toxins to the environment, and the genetic composition of the individual populations changed. This demonstrates the primary driving force of evolution, natural selection, in a laboratory setting.

It was a great lab. Now, if only we could get those fundamentalists to take a college bio class so they could do it too.

We don't accept the standard norm, so then automatically we are fundamentalists? Then so were Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Einstein and even your beloved Darwin, you <really cool guy>. And I did take a bio class in college this semester, and yes he did try his best to convince everyone of the theory of evolution. But all I got from it was how natural selection works, and I don't doubt natural selection. It is the mutation of genes that leads to more complex species that I doubt, my professor didn't want to spend to much time on that part, not surprisingly, since it is that part of evolution that makes no sense.

Moderator Action: Warned for flaming
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Chandrasekhar]

We don't accept the standard norm, so then automatically we are fundamentalists? Then so were Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Einstein and even your beloved Darwin, you <really cool guy>. And I did take a bio class in college this semester, and yes he did try his best to convince everyone of the theory of evolution. But all I got from it was how natural selection works, and I don't doubt natural selection. It is the mutation of genes that leads to more complex species that I doubt, my professor didn't want to spend to much time on that part, not surprisingly, since it is that part of evolution that makes no sense.

You are making a fundamentalist out of yourself here, you know...

I don't see how you can make a distinction between natural selection and evolution. It's just a series of small changes caused by natural selection. Just try to wrap your mind around the massive timescales involved here. Little changes add up over hundreds of millions of years. Or do you deny that the world has been around that long, too?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Just goes to show that no opponent of the theory of evolution really understands what it is. "I accept natural selection, and I accept that evolution can occur in the short term over small scales, but I don't believe that a process that produces small changes in short periods can produce large changes in long periods."

 

[Bluemofia]

Or to put it in mathematical terms:

"I agree 1+1=2, but I do not agree that 1+1+1+1... could = 100."

 

[Atlas14]

We don't accept the standard norm, so then automatically we are fundamentalists? Then so were Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Einstein and even your beloved Darwin, you <really cool guy>. And I did take a bio class in college this semester, and yes he did try his best to convince everyone of the theory of evolution. But all I got from it was how natural selection works, and I don't doubt natural selection. It is the mutation of genes that leads to more complex species that I doubt, my professor didn't want to spend to much time on that part, not surprisingly, since it is that part of evolution that makes no sense.

It is not only mutations of genes that lead to more complex species, it is the adding of nucleobases over time, which lead to different combinations of nitrogenous base pairs of A:T and C:G, and then different genes. Also, all organisms have genes that are turned on and off. Different environmental factors can turn genes from on to off, and from off to on. Over hundreds of millions of years you get complex species as an expected result.

 

[Bluemofia]

Insertion, Deletion, Frame shift, extra or missing chromosomal copies/parts/genes, etc. are all possible DNA mutations. Not to mention the other environmental factors...

 

[Homie]

Or to put it in mathematical terms:

"I agree 1+1=2, but I do not agree that 1+1+1+1... could = 100."

This is not what I am saying at all. I am not saying that I accept evolution on a small scale, but deny it on a big scale, I am saying that I do not accept evolution at all. If you guys equate evolution with natural selection, then you guys don't understand evolution. Natural selection is the most important aspect of evolution, but not the only driving force of it, there needs to be mutation that is beneficial to the species in terms of reproduction or survival. It is this last part that I have a problem with. If we take mutation out of evolution, we are left with the devolution of species (there is less and less genetic information in the world, resulting in less complex species). Because the ancestor species would have all the genetic information for that species, but the new species that evolved from it (because of natural selection, because the population group has been split into seperate groups, no interbreeding between them) would have only part of the genetic information of the ancestor.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

This is not what I am saying at all. I am not saying that I accept evolution on a small scale, but deny it on a big scale, I am saying that I do not accept evolution at all. If you guys equate evolution with natural selection, then you guys don't understand evolution. Natural selection is the most important aspect of evolution, but not the only driving force of it, there needs to be mutation that is beneficial to the species in terms of reproduction or survival. It is this last part that I have a problem with. If we take mutation out of evolution, we are left with the devolution of species (there is less and less genetic information in the world, resulting in less complex species). Because the ancestor species would have all the genetic information for that species, but the new species that evolved from it (because of natural selection, because the population group has been split into seperate groups, no interbreeding between them) would have only part of the genetic information of the ancestor.

You're saying that we don't understand evolution. Are you trying to tell us that you believe that there's no such thing as a beneficial mutation?

 

[Homie]

You're saying that we don't understand evolution.

Yes I am I know that is an extraordinarily, crazy, out-of-this-world claim to make, but I'm making it. You not understanding evolution is probably as unlikely as peace throughout the Middle East, but hey, you never know.rolleyes

Are you trying to tell us that you believe that there's no such thing as a beneficial mutation?

No, I'm saying that the likelihood of a mutation to happen is 1:X (X being many), and that the likelihood of the body to not fix the mutation or kill the mutated embryo is also 1:X (in other words, don't put money on it), and that the unlikelyhood that the mutation will make a significant difference in the makeup of the body of that species (a few nucleotides won't make much difference), and that if this mutation made a difference it would be for the good of the species, and that a new e.g. organ could be created from nothing which requires MANY mutations over MANY generations - all of which are beneficial to the species somehow. Now add all those unlikelihoods together and you will understand why I doubt evolution.

Think about it, a single-celled organism would have to go through an enourmous amount of mutations, all of which were beneficial, all of which the body's stop mechanism failed, to evolve into a mammal.
Life is far too complex and wound together in a system to be random FREAKIN UNLIKELY chance.

 

[azzaman333]

Unlikely isn't the same as impossible. Many beneficial mutations is much more likely than "God did it".

 

[Turner]

And you're also forgetting that for every beneficial mutation, there was dozens, perhaps hundreds that weren't.

Also not to mention the fact that the single cell evolved over billions of years to get to where we are today.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

People arguing about the slim chance of beneficial mutation forget howmany instances there are of such a mutation occuring.

Let's take 100 die (dices?). Throw &#233;m. What's the chance of all of them yielding 6? Pretty darn small. So, what's the chance of this happening within a day? Impossible to tell without the frequency. If you're able to throw once an hour, still pretty darn small. Now if it's possible to throw them once every millionth of a second, it almost becomes a certainty.

With evolution you are talking about millions, billions of years with many instances per second. No idea howmany, but the amount of possible events is mindboggling big that weven the most tiny of chances becomes plausible.

 

[Mise]

No, I'm saying that the likelihood of a mutation to happen is 1:X (X being many), and that the likelihood of the body to not fix the mutation or kill the mutated embryo is also 1:X (in other words, don't put money on it), and that the unlikelyhood that the mutation will make a significant difference in the makeup of the body of that species (a few nucleotides won't make much difference), and that if this mutation made a difference it would be for the good of the species, and that a new e.g. organ could be created from nothing which requires MANY mutations over MANY generations - all of which are beneficial to the species somehow. Now add all those unlikelihoods together and you will understand why I doubt evolution.

Cells are created and destroyed all the time. Every time you touch something, flakes of your skin break off, that contain hundreds of cells. These cells need to be replaced. Every time a cell is copied, there is a small chance that the copy is genetically mutated from its predecessor.

Think of how many cells there are in the human body. Millions. Being copied all the time. Think of how many humans there are. Billions. Being copied all the time.

Think about it, a single-celled organism would have to go through an enourmous amount of mutations, all of which were beneficial, all of which the body's stop mechanism failed, to evolve into a mammal.
Life is far too complex and wound together in a system to be random FREAKIN UNLIKELY chance.

You make it seem as though there was just 1 single cell in the entire universe that over billions of years turned into a person. I don't know if you're being ignorant or disingenuous, but there probably wasn't just 1 single cell. The required reagents to form the first enzyme were most likely in abundance. Several thousand, perhaps million cells were created almost simultaneously. So that's an extra 1,000,000.X chance of mutation right there.

Multiply that by the frequency of mutation and the billion years since then and you have an astronomical number, out of the realm of probabilities and into the realm of certainties.

 

[Perfection]

No, I'm saying that the likelihood of a mutation to happen is 1:X (X being many)

X being about 3 (give or take an order of magnitute) per cell division. The hundreds of devisions needed to get to an embryo practically garuntees multiple mutations per fetus.

I don't have data for the rest of the stuff, but this should show how your intuitive look at the probablities grossly fails to represent reality.

 

[El_Machinae]

I was listening to an article recently, about how the Heat Shock Proteins are able to 'buffer' against harmful mutations. Basically, the mutations would occur in non-essential proteins and the HSP would prevent those proteins from misfolding (I think) too far.

It was only under duress where these proteins were expressed in numbers such that the sum of the mutations became important.

Though, what does she know. She's only working on bringing forward a cure for Parkinson's that she originally found in yeast.

Homie: will you be taking more biology courses in your career?

 

[Shaihulud]

Evolution is a sound theory, we shouldn't even be arguing about that, various people have explained what constitutes a sound theory. At present, the theory of evolution is the only theory that makes sense, while intelligent design does not, therefore it should not be taught in school. The trick that the religious funamentalists are trying to pull, is to make us defend evolution instead of attacking the ID theory.

 

[garric]

My question is still unanswered: why isn't it kosher to question Darwin? With all these liberals living by the golden rule of "question everything", whenever someone even remotely doubts the truth behind Darwinism they are somehow ********.

I'm not Christian, I don't believe in ID, and no, I don't have an alternate "idea" of how life came to exist (and anyone who does must be really really sure of themselves, I bet), but I'm not allowed to question this "sacred" theory?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

My question is still unanswered: why isn't it kosher to question Darwin? With all these liberals living by the golden rule of "question everything", whenever someone even remotely doubts the truth behind Darwinism they are somehow ********.

I'm not Christian, I don't believe in ID, and no, I don't have an alternate "idea" of how life came to exist (and anyone who does must be really really sure of themselves, I bet), but I'm not allowed to question this "sacred" theory?

Question all you like. it's not a "sacred" theory, it's a scientific one, so it's dead-easy to question it using scientific methods.